Recruitment in today’s professional landscape is evolving rapidly, but one thing remains constant: the challenge of matching the right talent to the right role. If you look at it in simpler terms, I’d say hiring is like finding the right person to marry — or what we Malays call “mencari jodoh.”
In marriage, you’d want someone you like, can be with, can communicate with, and share the same values, vision, and wavelength. The point is, as much as you wouldn’t want to marry the wrong person — companies also don’t want to hire the wrong one.
Having worked across corporate, professional body, and academic sectors for over a decade, I’ve had a front-row seat to the realities of hiring, especially when the budget allows and there’s an available headcount in the team.
As for me, do I have experienced hiring before? Yep. I’ve had my fair share of it. And trust me, the process is not easy. It’s never as simple as emailing HR and saying:
“Hey, I need someone for this role. They need to start by X date, and they should be able to do this and that.”
Behind the scenes, there’s paperwork, approvals, workflows, and a whole system to navigate. And depending on the HR system your company uses, the process can become even more complex. Complicated system? Complicated hiring process. Simple as that. If you ask me whether I love hiring — I don’t. Not because I don’t enjoy building a team, but because the process is tedious. Which is exactly why, when I hire, I want to make sure I hire right. Because if I don’t, a few months down the line, I’ll find myself right back at square one. New recruitment. New onboarding. New probation review. New adjustments. New everything.
Now, having recently been active in interviews again reminded me just how often organisations get it wrong. The takeaway? Clarity is everything — and too often, it’s missing.
Experience One: When Experience Isn’t Enough
In one recent interview, I was told — point blank — that I wasn’t fit for the role because I lacked a specific instructional design certification. Never mind that I’ve spent years developing curricula, designing learning strategies, and leading education operations.
When I asked what certification they’d recommend, the answer was, “Any will do.”
That said a lot.
It wasn’t really about certification; it was about not knowing what it meant when you assert requirements onto candidates for hiring. This experience reflected a common pattern in recruitment: organisations sometimes overemphasise formal qualifications while undervaluing practical experience.
“Certifications matter, but they cannot fully capture years of applied expertise, strategic insight, or leadership capabilities. And that’s where many hiring decisions fall apart — when recruiters or leaders themselves lack clarity on what competence actually looks like.”
To make it more interesting, when I shared my expected salary, I was told that based on “what I have on paper,” it was unjustifiable — and that if I were hired, they’d only offer me nearly half of that.
Still, I offered to do their assignment alongside other shortlisted candidates — not to prove my worth, but to show the quality of experience that doesn’t always show on paper.
Their response? “I’d rather not waste your time.”
Imagine that.
Sometimes it’s not that candidates fall short — it’s that recruiters or hiring managers fail to see beyond the checklist.
And really, just imagine asking a world-class actor for a voice-over certification before hiring them for an animation. That’s bonkers, right? Yet in corporate hiring, this happens all the time — dismissing lived experience, instinct, and mastery simply because there’s no paper to validate it, or worse, because there aren’t enough optics to supplement the credentials.
Also, allow me to reiterate — I’ve spent years building learning systems that help professionals earn “certifications.” But here’s the truth — certifications don’t create competence; they validate it. And they cannot fully capture years of applied expertise, strategic insight, or leadership capabilities.
Experience Two: Misaligned Role Expectations
In a separate experience, I applied for a programme manager role to support the development of professional certifications at a large professional body. Initially, I was not shortlisted because the organisation sought a candidate with “core instructional design and content development experience.”
After further discussion, I learned the role had been upgraded to a leadership position intended to set standards for the team. I understood that, because I knew the organisation was currently facing structural challenges (yep. I did my research on all my future potential employers):
- The last major framework was launched years ago, with subsequent certifications largely adapted from external partners.
- Internal teams were siloed, often working based on legacy practices rather than standardised approaches.
- New strategic frameworks relied heavily on outsourced solutions rather than internal expertise.
Effectively, the organisation needed someone who could standardise processes, integrate industry trends, and elevate programme quality. While my experience aligned with these needs, I was not shortlisted. That brought me back to a conversation I had with friend who used to work there, “They have issues. Plenty of internal uncertainty rather than strategic fit.”
Again, the same theme:
“Obsession with “certifications” — and how it has been overvalued by organisations to the extent that they can’t be bothered to check on other things.”
Is recruitment really just ticking a checkbox these days?
Experience Three: Internal Misalignment and Recruitment Challenges
I once left an organisation due to a misalignment of my professional values with its work culture and environment. Shortly after my departure, few other lefts including my immediate supervisor, and there’s plenty of vacant position
During my tenure, there was considerable overlap between senior roles, making responsibilities unclear and, at times, leaving some positions functionally redundant. They weren’t top-heavy, but somehow, I felt suffocated having to work with so many “bosses.”
At the exit interview, I suggested promoting someone internally for the next leadership role — a colleague with credibility, deep knowledge of the team, and strong alignment with the organisational culture. However, the organisation decided to continue searching externally, reasoning that the role was “too senior” for an internal promotion.
This illustrates a broader point:
“Organisations sometimes prioritise external credentials or hierarchical considerations over cultural fit, internal knowledge, and long-term impact.”
Did recruiters not compare the cost-to-hire with the cost of promotion? Does HR, amid their functional silos, even discuss this?
Experience Four: The “Brand Promise”
In my search for the right “next one” for me, an organisation caught my attention. Their brand exuded authenticity — approachable, human, deeply reflective. I thought, “Finally, someone doing this right.”
I clicked Apply to the position that was open, and a few days later, I received an email inviting me to complete an “assessment brief.”
“Before we proceed with shortlisting you for an interview, kindly complete the assessment as part of the screening process.”
I opened the file, and there it was — it felt more like a full-scale consulting project than an evaluation. It required an in-depth strategy proposal, end-to-end design thinking framework, and delivery plan — all without context or compensation.
It wasn’t just “show us what you can do,” it was “build us something we might actually use.”
Now, don’t get me wrong. Assessments are useful when they measure fit and thought process. I’ve done this to my candidates before – but definitely not to this extend. Seems like the assessment is morphing into an unpaid consulting work, the balance tips from fairness to exploitation. Somewhere along the line, the intent of evaluating a candidate’s capability got replaced with a scavenger hunt for free ideas.
It made me pause — not because I didn’t want to put in effort, but because I started asking:
“What are we really assessing here? Creativity? Commitment? Or compliance?”
It makes me wonder.
Dear Recruiter,
In your checkbox to hire, isn’t there a demarcation to note the differences between an assessment to screen and an assessment for work?
Don’t overdo things.
My flair in HR has always been in L&D — hiring, recruitment, or talent acquisition is not my thing. From what I see, and as I mentioned earlier, hiring at its core should feel like finding your jodoh — that deep sense of rightness when values, rhythm, and vision align. You don’t marry someone because they look good on paper; you choose them because they make sense with your future.
A great hire isn’t about perfection. It’s about partnership — where clarity meets intention. Because without good intentions, even the best résumés crumble under the weight of misalignment.
At least that’s how I chose my husband. And I can tell you — I married right. Alhamdulillah.
L&D can bridge the gap between talent acquisition and operational excellence by aligning capability frameworks with hiring criteria. Instead of using certifications as filters, organisations should evaluate how candidates embody operational values — adaptability, process thinking, and problem-solving. Operational excellence, after all, is not just about smooth processes. It’s about people who make those processes work better every day. Imagine a hiring culture that measures success not by how well someone fits an old mould, but by how effectively they can refine, improve, and elevate it.
Because recruitment shouldn’t end when the offer letter is signed. It should evolve with the person — just like a marriage grows with commitment, trust, and shared purpose.
Leave a Reply